The American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU), together with 14 other industry associations, has signed a joint statement calling on EU co-legislators to finalise an ambitious and simplified implementation of the AI Act. The statement, released on 13 April 2026, urges a swift agreement that keeps simplification at its core, including extending grace periods for generative AI labelling requirements, ensuring legal clarity for AI systems entering the EU market, preserving the risk-based approach by exempting non-high-risk systems from registration, and supporting fixed compliance deadlines for high-risk systems.
The call comes as the European Commission's Digital Omnibus on AI, proposed by Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis on 19 November 2025, aims to simplify AI, cybersecurity, and data rules. The Omnibus seeks a 25% reduction in administrative costs for companies and 35% for SMEs, including simplified compliance for Small Mid Cap companies under the AI Act. The business groups' statement builds on earlier industry engagement: on 13 March 2026, AmCham EU met with MEPs in Strasbourg to discuss digital simplification priorities, and on 24 March 2026, it published a position paper on reducing complexity in Europe's digital rulebook.
The joint statement also aligns with broader EU efforts to streamline digital regulation. On 19 November 2025, Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen proposed a digital simplification package targeting at least €5 billion in administrative compliance cost savings by 2029. President Ursula von der Leyen's 'One Europe, One Market' roadmap, presented on 12 February 2026, promised to finalise omnibus packages cutting red tape by €15 billion annually. Meanwhile, on 10 April 2026, Commissioner Mînzatu pushed for coordinated AI impact data to address employment and inequality challenges, underscoring the need for evidence-based policy.
Cleavages and Trade-offs The business groups' push for simplification and extended grace periods reflects a tension between business competitiveness vs. regulatory oversight. Extending deadlines and exempting non-high-risk systems from registration reduces compliance costs for companies, particularly SMEs, but may weaken safeguards for fundamental rights and safety, as critics might argue. The call to preserve the risk-based approach maintains the AI Act's core structure, but exempting non-high-risk systems could reduce transparency and accountability, potentially impacting consumer trust. The request for fixed compliance deadlines for high-risk systems provides legal certainty for industry but may limit the flexibility of regulators to adapt to emerging risks. Overall, the trade-off is between fostering innovation and reducing administrative burdens versus ensuring robust protection of safety and fundamental rights, with moderate impact on EU producers (lower costs) and EU consumers (potentially less oversight on non-high-risk AI).
← Atlas › News › Digital & Communication